UNITED STATES
v.
ATLANTIC REFINING CO. ET AL.

U.S. | 1959-03-30
No. 210
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
359 U.S. 952 Supreme Court of the United States (1959) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Braen v. Pfeifer Oil Transp. Co., Inc., 361 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1959)
    …e so he could board it, the catwalk gave way, causing the injury. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for - petitioner. 263 F. 2d 147. We granted the petition for certiorari because that decision seemed to be out of line with the authorities. 359 U. S. 952. In O’Donnell v. Great Lakes Co., 318 U. S. 36, a seaman was allowed to recover under the Jones Act even though he was injured on shore. The seaman was a deckhand. The ship was discharging her cargo through a conduit that was connected at its outer…
  • …ax Court had exclusive jurisdiction to review any final order of the Renegotiation Board, is affirmed. Sec. 403(e) of the Renegotiations Act; 50 U.S.C.App. § 1191 (e) (1). Rushlight v. United States, 259 F. 2d 658, 659 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 952, 79 S.Ct. 738, 3 L.Ed.2d 760 (1959); Bass v. United States, 221 F. 2d 494 (8th Cir.,), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 827, 76 S.Ct. 56, 100 L.Ed. 738. The fact that bankruptcy intervened in the present case does not change our conclusion. United States v.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw